Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences
ISSN 2039-2117 (online)
ISSN 2039-9340 (print)
Vol 5 No 20
September 2014
MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy
A Comparative Study of the Picture Of Dorian Gray and Its
Two Persian Translations in Terms of Cohesive Devices
Elaheh Pirmoradian
Graduate School, Islamic Azad University, Shahreza Branch, Isfahan, Iran
Email: Eleheh.Pirmoradian@yahoo.com
Hossein Vahid Dastjerdi
Corresponding author, Graduate School, Islamic Azad University, Shahreza Branch, Isfahan, Iran
Email: h_vahid@yahoo.com
Doi:10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n20p2373
Abstract
Having considered the importance of cohesion in producing a fluent and meaningful text, this study attempts, based on Halliday
and Hassan (1976) 's model of cohesion, to compare the English text The Picture of Dorian Gray (Oscar Wilde, 1982) with its
two Persian translations by Tahami (2013) and Mashayekhi (2008), to investigate the strategies applied by the two translators
in transferring cohesive devices, and to scrutinize the effects of the translators’ choices on the transference of the intended
meaning to the target language. To this purpose, the cohesive devices (reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction and lexical
cohesion) of the source text were identified and compared with those in the target texts. These devices were compared
intralingually between the two target texts as well. The results of this quantitative and descriptive study revealed that there is
not a one-to-one relationship between the source text and target texts in terms of cohesive devices due to the grammatical
differences between the two languages and the deletion or addition of some information to the target text to convey the
meaning. However, such differences do not damage the transference of the intended meaning to the target language. Also, it
was shown that the patterns of use of cohesive devices, except the substitution element, are not the same in the two target
texts either, because of stylistic or other differences. These findings require more attention on the part of translators when
dealing with these devices which can finally will lead to higher quality renderings.
Keywords: Coherence, Cohesive Devices, Reference, Substitution, Ellipsis, Conjunction, Collocation and Reiteration.
1. Introduction
It is generally believed that a text whether written or spoken is only meaningful when the various segments are brought
together to make a unified whole. Osisanwo (2005, p. 31) remarks that a text is said to be cohesive when the linguistic
means by which a text function is held together as a single unit. Halliday and Hasan (1976) make a detailed classification
of the cohesive devices in English. These authors distinguish between grammatical and lexical cohesion. According to
them, grammatical cohesion embraces four different devices: reference, substitution, ellipsis and conjunction. Lexical
cohesion embraces reiteration and collocation.
According to Lotfipur (1992), a translator should attempt to make an adjusted translation which is equivalent to the
original in terms of cohesive devices (grammatical and lexical). The main idea involved here is ‘the equivalent devices’,
which means devices prevalent in TL text, not the same devices as in SL text. As Lotfipur, Larson (1984) believes that "a
one-for-one translation of cohesive devices in TL will almost certainly distort the meaning intended by the original author"
(p. 394). Therefore, she points out that the translator should be fully aware of the fact in practice. In literature, however,
shifts in types of 'cohesive ties' through translation may alter the central functions of cohesive 'markers' (devices)
drastically (Venuti, 2004). As a result, translation of a literary work must be cautiously performed lest the use of wrong
devices in the TL disturb the communication and likely distort the message.
Thus, based on what mentioned above, a translation to be communicative must observe the cohesive devices of
the target language (reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, reiteration and collocation), and not that of the source
language because each language differs from another language in its style in connecting words and sentences together,
and the cohesive devices and the rules governing them in order to create a text, depend greatly on the nature of that
language. So, a translator who bridges two languages should do his/her best to transfer the meaning of the source text to
2373
ISSN 2039-2117 (online)
ISSN 2039-9340 (print)
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences
MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy
Vol 5 No 20
September 2014
the target text as completely as possible. This goal cannot be achieved just by finding proper equivalents to the words
and ignoring the difference between languages makes the translated text a collection of words in awkward and unnatural
arrangements without conveying its intended meaning.
Since the actual concern of translator is to primarily transfer the real content of the source text, any failure in
producing a coherent body will hamper the communication and the content consequently. This problem becomes more
serious when the text is a great literary masterpiece and the content is ethical, as the source text under investigation in
this study. Thus, translating such a text demands special attention on the part of the translator so that the translated text
would be as smooth and cohesive as the original
Therefore, conducting an investigation on the cohesive style in the source and target languages, especially in the
case of literary genres and narrative text types, is of high value in translation and translation studies. This study, following
previous investigations about cohesion, attempts, based on Halliday and Hassan (1976) 's model of cohesion, to
compare an outstanding English novel, The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde (1982), with its two Persian
translations in order to investigate the strategies applied by translators to translate cohesive devices and to scrutinize the
effects of the translator 's choices on the transference of the intended meaning to the target language.
The findings of this study can be used for pedagogical and translational purposes. The study can actually yield
some solutions for appropriate translation of cohesive devices from English into Persian. It can also help to identify the
reliability and practicality of Halliday and Hasssn (1976) 's taxonomy in analyzing cohesive ties and cohesion in general.
2. Background of the Study
Halliday (1978) notes that we cannot discuss cohesion without mentioning 'text', 'texture' and 'tie'. Brown and Yule (1989)
define text as the verbal record of a communicative event. Scholars such as Vandijk (1972), Gutwinsk (1976),
Beaugrande and Dressler (1981) claim 'text' has to do with the principles of connectivity which bind a discourse (spoken
or written text) together and force co-interpretation. Fowler (1991) states that, ''a text is made up of sentences, but there
exist separate principles of text- construction, beyond the rules of making sentences'' (p. 59). Hatim and Mason (1990)
believe that the text is a set of mutually relevant communicative functions, structured in such a way as to achieve an
overall purpose.
The word 'text' is generally used in linguistics to refer to any passage spoken or written of whatever length, that
forms a unified whole as opposed to a collection of unrelated sentences. This distinction goes to show that there are
certain features which are characteristics of texts. According to Halliday and Hassan (1976) a text has three
characteristics:
1. A text may be spoken or written, prose or verse, dialogue or monologue.
2. A text is a unit of language in use.
3. A text is regarded as a semantic unit (p. 2).
Halliday and Hassan then point out that "the concept of texture is entirely appropriate to express the property of
being a text. A text has texture and this is what distinguishes it from something that is not a text'' (ibid). In their opinion
certain linguistic features in a passage, i.e. cohesive devices (reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, reiteration and
collocation), contribute to its total unity and giving it texture. In other words, what gives texture to a text is the cohesive
ties which it contains.
Cohesion and coherence, as Bell (1993) proposes, are two constituent elements of texture. If the coherence in a
text is not well-kept, the reader cannot understand the intended meaning. Thus, a text must be cohesive as well as
coherent. The coherence of a text is helped by the proper use of cohesive devices.
The theory of cohesion in English proposed by Halliday and Hassan (1976) and Halliday (1994) has made a
significant contribution to the understanding of cohesion and, to a certain extent, coherence of English texts. The theory
accounts for the relationship between the different elements of a text so as to enable the reader or listener to derive
meaning from the text. Without cohesion a text may be fragmented and lose its meaning. Cohesion makes a text
consistent, so that ideas can easily be followed.
According to Baker (1993), cohesion is the network of lexical, grammatical and other relations which provide links
between various parts of a text (p. 180). She adds that discourse structure in any language will evidently be collapsed
when the series of the sentences in the structure are put together without firm linkage that is cohesion; just as the bricks
of a building would be fallen down when there is no cemen, or at least enough, to stick them together.
2374
ISSN 2039-2117 (online)
ISSN 2039-9340 (print)
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences
MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy
Vol 5 No 20
September 2014
3. Research Questions
Based on what was stated above, the following questions were addressed in this study:
1. What translation strategies have been used to properly render cohesive devices in the two Persian
translations of Oscar Wilde 's The Picture of Dorian Gray?
2. To what extent have the employed strategies affected the target texts in terms of meaning?
4. Methodology
4.1
Materials
The English novel chosen as the source text for the purpose of this study is The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde
(1982), including 20 chapters in 210 pages. It was first published in 1891. This short novel is the story of one beautiful
innocent young man's seduction, moral corruption and eventual downfall. It's an interesting combination of elements
written in a sort of high literary mode with ornate, self-conscious artistic language and heightened sense of style.
Two translations of The Picture of Dorian Gray by Mashayekhi (2008) and Tahami (2013) were chosen for
comparison. To this purpose, out of the whole content of the source text, i.e. 20 chapters, ten chapters were selected
randomly, which constitute 110 pages of the source text--54% of the whole book.
4.2
Theoretical Framework of the Study
Although some researchers have identified several types of cohesion (Brown & Yule, 1983; Cook, 1989; McCarthy, 1991;
Renkema, 1993), Halliday and Hassan’s (1976) cohesion framework was adopted by the researchers in this study due to
the comprehensiveness of its well-known taxonomy.
Halliday and Hassan in their book, Cohesion in English (1976), divided cohesive devices, as mentioned before,
into: reference, substitution, ellipsis and conjunction (grammatical cohesive devices), and reiteration and collocation
(lexical cohesive devices).
Reference, as the first category of grammatical cohesive devices, involves the use of pronoun articles or adverbs
to refer back or forward to an item mentioned in the linguistic or situational text. There are three types of reference:
personal, comparative and demonstrative reference. Substitution is the replacement of one item by another. It is a
relation in the wording rather than in the meaning. Ellipsis, on the other hand, is the idea of omitting some parts of
sentences on the assumption that an earlier sentence will make clear the meaning. Conjunctions are words or phrases
that indicate how what is to follow is systematically connected to what has gone before in the text.
Lexical cohesion is established through the structure of lexis or vocabulary. Lexical cohesion encompasses
reiteration and collocation. Reiteration simply means repetition of a lexical item or the occurrence of synonyms of some
kind in the context reference. That is, where the two occurrences have the same Reference. Reiteration manifests in
three ways: supperordinate / hyponym, synonym or near synonym. Collocation is achieved through the association of
lexical items that regularly occur. It also involves pairs of words drawn from the same order series.
4.3
Procedures
To conduct the present study, the following steps were taken. Out of the whole content of The Picture of Dorian Gray (20
chapters), ten chapters (chapters 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 11, 14, 15,17, and 19) were selected randomly. In the two Persian
translations, corresponding chapters were focused and examined in terms of cohesive devices, namely; reference,
substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, reiteration and collocation according to Halliday and Hassan (1976)'s framework of
cohesion. Then, the instances of the above mentioned cohesive devices in the source text and their equivalents in each
of the target texts were identified. In the next step, the frequency of identified instances of the cohesive devices for the
source text and each of the target texts were counted and tabulated.
Finally, on the basis of the collected data, the source text and each of the target texts were compared and
contrasted with each other, followed by the comparison of the two target texts with each other, to find the strategies
applied in the transference of cohesive devices from English into Persian, and to measure the extent of the effect of the
translators’ choices on the transference of meaning to the target language.
2375
ISSN 2039-2117 (online)
ISSN 2039-9340 (print)
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences
MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy
Vol 5 No 20
September 2014
5. Data Analysis and Results
For the sake of brevity, just one example for each of the mentioned cohesive devices is provided in this section, followed
by summarizing the collected data and the results in a number of tables.
5.1
Reference
ST: In the center of the room, clamped to an upright easel, stood the full-length portrait of a young man of extra ordinary
personal beauty, and in front of it, some little distance away sitting the artist himself.
ή̳έΎ̴ϧ ΩϮΧ ̶Ϥ̯ ‫؞‬ϠλΎϓ ΎΑ ϥ΁ ̵ϭήΑϭέ ϭ Ζη΍Ωέ΍ήϗ ΎΒϳί ϩΩΎόϟ΍ ϕϮϓ ̶ϧ΍ϮΟ Ϊϗ ϡΎϤΗ ‫؝‬έΎ̴ϧ ̵ΩϮϤϋ ̵΍ ϪϳΎ̡ ̵ϭέήΑ ϕΎΗ΍ ‫؞‬ϧΎϴϣέΩ :TT1
.ΩϮΑ ϪΘδθϧ
/Dar miyaneye otaq bar rooye payehi amoodi neqareye tamam qadde javani foqoladeh ziba qarar dasht va bar
rooye aan baa faseleye kami xode negargar neshasteh bood./
ϪϠλΎϓ ϪΑ ήϳϮμΗ ϞΑΎϘϣέΩ .ΪϧΩϮΑ ϪΘη΍ά̳ ̶̳έΰΑ ‫؞‬ϳΎ̡ Ϫγ ̵ϭέ έΩ ΍έ ̶ϳΎΒϳί ϩΩΎόϟ΍ ϕϮϓ ϥ΍ϮΟ ̵ΎϤϧ ϡΎϤΗ ήϳϮμΗ ϕΎΗ΍ ςγϭ έΩ :TT2
.ΩϮΑ ϪΘδθϧ εΎϘϧ ̶Ϥ̯
/Dar vasate otaq tasvire tamam nemaye javane foqoladeh zibai raa dar rooye se payeye bozorgi gozashteh
boodand./
Analysis: in the ST, Wilde has applied the personal pronoun it to refer to the portrait and the personal reflective
pronoun himself to refer to the artist to create the intended cohesion in the text. Accordingly, Tahami has applied the
same strategy as in the ST by using ϥ΁/aan/ as equivalent for it and ΩϮΧ /xod/ as equivalent for himself. But Mashayekhi
has omitted the cohesive devices it and himself.
Table 1 shows the frequency of references used by Wilde and by Tahami and Mashayekhi in the selected parts of
the ST and the two TTs.
Table 1. Frequency of References used in the ST and TTs.
Cohesive Device
Total Frequency
5.2
Reference
Tahami
3760
Wilde
6960
Mashayekhi
4114
Substitution
ST: You do many things in the world to gain a reputation. As soon as you have one, you seem to want to throw it.
ΪϴηϮ̯ ̶ϣ ˬΎϳϮ̳ ˬΪϳέ΁ ̶ϣ ΖγΪΑ ϭέ ΕήϬη ϥ΁ Ϫ̰Ϩϳ΍ ξΤϣ ϪΑ ̶ϟϭ ˬΪϳΩ ̶ϣ ϡΎΠϧ΍ ΪηΎΑ ϡίϻ Ϫ̯ ̵έΎ̯ ήϫ ΕήϬη ΐδ̯ ̵΍ήΑ :TT1
.Ϊϳί΍ΪϨΑ εέϭΩ ϪΑ ΎΗ
/Baraye kasbe shohrat har kari ke lazem bashad anjam midid, vali be mahze in ke aan shohrat ro be dast miarid,
gooya, mikooshid taa be doorash bendazid./
.ΪϴϨ̯ έ΍ήϓ ϥ΁ ί΍ ϩΪη έϮρ ήϫ Ϊϴϫ΍ϮΧ ̶ϣ ˬΪη ωϭήηέΎΨΘϓ΍ ϭ ΕήϬη ϥ΍έϭΩ Ϫ̰ϨϴϤϫ :TT2
/Haminke dourane shohrat va eftexar shoroo shod, mixahid har tour shodeh az aan farar konid./
Analysis: In the ST, one as nominal substitution refers to reputation. None of the translators have considered the
cohesive device of the ST, due to the repetition of ΕήϬη/shohrat/ in the second sentence of TT1 and using ϥ΁ /aan/ in
TT2.
Table 2 shows the frequency of substitutions used in the selected parts of the ST and TTs.
Table 2. Frequency of Substitutions used in the ST and TTs.
Cohesive Device
Total Frequency
5.3
Substitution
Tahami
43
Wilde
66
Ellipsis
ST: ''I quite forget what I said '', smiled Lord Henry, ''was it all very bad''?
''Very bad indeed''.
2376
Mashayekhi
43
ISSN 2039-2117 (online)
ISSN 2039-9340 (print)
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences
MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy
Vol 5 No 20
September 2014
ˮϢΘϔ̳ ̵ΪΑ ̵Ύϫΰϴ̩ ˬΩί ̵ΪϨΨΒϟ ̵ήϨϫ Ωήϟ ˮέϮτ̩ .ϡΩή̯ εϮϣ΍ήϓ ̶Ϡ̯ ϪΑ ϢΘϔ̳ ϭέ Ϫ̪ϧ΁ ήϫ Ϧϣ -:TT1
/Man har aanche ro goftam be kolli Faramoosh kardam. Chetour? Lord Henry labxandi zad, chiz haye badi
goftam?/
/ .ΪΑ έΎϴδΑ -Besyar bad/
ˮΩϮΑ ϩ΍ήϴΑ ϭ ΪΑ ̶ϠϴΧ ή̴ϣ ˬϢΘϔ̳ Ϫ̩ Ϣϧ΍Ω ̶Ϥϧ Ϧϣ - :TT2
/Man nemidanam che goftam, magar xeili bad o birah bood?/
./ .ΪΑ έΎϴδΑ -Besyar bad/
Analysis: Here, very bad is clausal ellipsis for it was very bad. Both translators have applied the model of ST to
establish cohesion and have thus correctly translated the clausal ellipsis by using ΪΑ έΎϴδΑ /besyar bad/ as equivalent for it.
Table 3 shows the frequency of ellipsis used by Wilde,Tahami and Mashayekhi.
Table 3. Frequency of Ellipsis used in the ST and TTs.
Cohesive Device
Total Frequency
5.4
Ellipsis
Tahami
63
Wilde
103
Mashayekhi
57
Conjunction
ST: Besides, Dorian, don't deceive yourself.
.ϩΪϧ ΐϳήϓ ϭέ ΕΩϮΧ ϥΎϳέϭΩ ˬήΗ ϢϬϣ ϪϤϫ ί΍ :TT1
/Az hame mohem tar, Dorain xodet ro farib nadeh./
/Gool naxorid/ .ΪϳέϮΨϧ ϝϮ̳ :TT2
Analysis: Besides, in this case, is additive conjunction. Tahami has translated the conjunction intoήΗ ϢϬϣ ϪϤϫί΍ /az
hame mohem tar/ which seems to be an appropriate equivalent for besides, but Mashayekhi has missed the intended
cohesion of the ST by omitting the conjunction.
Table 4 below shows the frequency of conjunctions applied by Wilde, Tahami and Mashayekhi.
Table 4. Frequency of Conjunctions used in the ST and TTs.
Cohesive Device
Total Frequency
5.5
Conjunction
Tahami
1071
Wilde
1260
Mashayekhi
56
Lexical Cohesion
ST: People go about nowadays saying things against one's back that are absolutely and entirely true.
.ϩέ΍Ω ΖϘϴϘΣ ϼϣΎ̯ ϭ Ϊλ έΩ Ϊλ Ϫ̯ ΪϨ̳ ̶ϣ ϥΎδϧ΍ ήγ Ζθ̡ ̶ϳΎϫ ΰϴ̩ ϭ ΪϨΘϓ΍ ̶ϣ ϩ΍έ ϡΩήϣ :TT1
/ mardom rah mioftand va chiz hayi poshte sare ensan migand ke sad dar sad va kamelan haqiqat dareh./
ΪλέΩ Ϊλ Ϫ̯ ̶ϳΎϫ ΰϴ̩ ϦΘϔ̳ ϭ ϥΩή̯ ̶Ο΍έϭ ϪΑ ΪϨϨ̯ ̶ϣ ωϭήη ΎϤη ήγ Ζθ̡ ϡΩήϣ Ϊϴϧ΍Ωή̳ήΑ ΍έ ϥΎΘϳϭέ ΎϤη Ϫ̰Ϩϳ΍ ξΤϣ ϪΑ :TT2
.Ζγ΍ Ζγ΍έ
/be mahze in ke shoma rooyetan ra bargardanid mardom poshte sare shom shoroo mikonand be verraji kardan va
goftane chiz hayi ke sad dar sad rast ast./
Analysis: In this case, absolutely and entirely make reiteration lexical cohesion of synonym relation. Tahami has
correctly translated reiteration of the ST by providing ϼϣΎ̯ ϭ Ϊλ έΩ Ϊλ /sad dar sad va kamelan/ as equivalent for the
cohesive device. But Mashayekhi has ignored this lexical cohesion by omitting it.
Table 5 below shows the frequency of conjunctions applied by Wilde and the two translators.
Table 5. Frequency of Lexical Cohesion used in the ST and TTs.
Cohesive Device
Total Frequency
Lexical Cohesion
Tahami
1071
Wilde
1260
2377
Mashayekhi
856
ISSN 2039-2117 (online)
ISSN 2039-9340 (print)
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences
Vol 5 No 20
September 2014
MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy
6. Results
The following table summarizes the results of the analyzed data discussed above, illustrating the frequency of each of the
cohesive devices (reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction and lexical cohesion) in the selected parts of the source
text and the frequency of these devices in the two corresponding target texts. As shown in Table 6, cohesive devices
have a higher frequency of use in comparison with the two TTs, and the patterns of these devices, except in the case of
substitution element, are not the same in the two TTs either.
Table 6. Frequency of Cohesive Devices used in the ST` & TTs
Types of Cohesion
Reference
Substitution
Ellipsis
Conjunction
Lexical cohesion
Total Frequency of Cohesive Devices
ST
6960
66
103
1260
379
8768
TT1
3708
43
63
1071
330
5215
TT2
4114
43
57
856
251
5321
7. Findings and Discussion
In order to answer the research questions of the study, after identifying the cohesive devices of the source text, these
cohesive devices were compared with those in the two corresponding target texts. The research questions were about
the strategies the two translators, Tahami (2013) and Mashayekhi (2008), have used in rendering such cohesive devices
as reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, and lexical cohesion, i.e. collocation and reiteration; and also the effects
of the translator 's choices on the transference of meaning to the target text.
In the case of reference, as shown in Table 1, there was a considerable difference in the frequency of the
references in the ST and TTs. This is to a large degree because of grammatical differences between English and Persian
languages. English requires the presence of subject at the beginning of all sentences. This feature forces the language to
use the reference mechanism more extensively, while in Persian the subject can be interpreted from the verb by itself,
and thus, the subject which is a pronoun most of the times, can be omitted in Farsi. Besides, in English, there is a special
singular pronoun for each gender, male and female, but in Persian this is not the case. The other source of this variation
is that in Persian an exact and stable equivalent for the article the does not exist, which according to Halliday and Hassan
(1976) is a demonstrative pronoun and used to a large degree in English sentences. Even the pattern of reference in the
two TTs is not the same.
In the case of substitution, as indicated in Table 2, there is not a one-to-one relationship between the ST and TTs.
This is due to the fact that sometimes translators have added some information or repeated the same part of the
sentence to convey the meaning to the TT. However, the pattern of substitution is the same in the two TTs.
According to Table 3, in the case of ellipsis, again there is rather a big difference between the frequency of this
cohesive device in the ST and TTs because of the repetition of some unnecessary information in the TT which has been
omitted in the ST. Even in the two TTs, the pattern of ellipsis is different.
As for conjunction, as illustrated in Table 4, there is not a one-to-one relationship between the ST and TTs and
even between the TTs as well. Most of the conjunctions were transferred to the TTs (but not literally translated in all
instances) while in several cases some conjunctions especially and at the beginning of the independent sentences have
been omitted in the TTs.
In the case of lexical cohesion, as shown in Table 5, the patterns of collocation and reiteration are different in the
ST and TTs and even between the TTs. This difference is because of the fact that some reiterations of the ST have not
been considered by the translators in the two TTs. On the other hand, there is less variation in the collocation patterns of
the ST and TTs in comparison with reiteration patterns.
To sum up, on the one hand, there is not a one-to-one relationship between the ST and TTs in the use of cohesive
devices because of the grammatical differences of the two languages. On the other hand, even the target texts, except in
the case of substitution, have not followed the same patterns in the use of cohesive devices because of the fact that each
translator has applied his own taste, style of writing and choice of words, and even, the attention to these devices may
have varied from one translator to another.
The findings of the present study reinforce those of previous researches which have investigated Persian-English
2378
ISSN 2039-2117 (online)
ISSN 2039-9340 (print)
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences
MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy
Vol 5 No 20
September 2014
literary translations in terms of cohesive devices. For example, Khanzad (2007) and Dastjerdi & Taghizadeh (2006) show
the same results in the case of comparison of cohesive devices in English and Persian languages. Dastjerdi &
Taghizadeh in a similar study compared a Persian literary text, Gulistan, with its two English versions in terms of cohesive
devices. The results of their study revealed that there was a considerable difference between the ST and TTs in the use
of cohesive devices. Actually, the present study and its predecessors go side by side to the effect that awareness of
inevitable differences which show the lack of one-to-one relationship between English and Persian languages concerning
cohesive devices helps to choose appropriate equivalents in order to translate from each of these languages into another.
8. Concluding Remarks
A text in order to be communicative and meaningful to the receiver of any discourse, must be cohesive or, in other words,
hanging together. This feature is provided by the use of cohesive devices including, reference, substitution, ellipsis,
conjunction and lexical cohesion, i.e. reiteration and collocation in the text. A translation to be communicative has to
observe the cohesive devices of the target language and not that of the source language. This is due to the fact that each
language differs from another in its techniques in connecting words and sentences together, and that the rules governing
cohesive devices are not the same in all languages, but vary from one language to another depending on the nature of
the language.
The present study considered the translation of cohesive devices, based on Halliday and Hassan’s (1976) model of
cohesion, in the two Persian translations of an English novel, i.e. The Picture of Dorian Gray. Based on the obtained
results, it can be concluded that there is not a one-to-one relationship between the ST and TTs, nor between the two TTs.
This is because of the different grammatical systems of the two languages and the fact that even within one language,
two translators may apply different techniques to deal with cohesive devices depending on their specific style of writing,
taste, experience of the translation task, etc. Mashayekhi has used more references compared with Tahami, while both of
them have used fewer references than the Wilde. But this difference has not disturbed the transference of the intended
meaning to the TTs by the translators. Even in some rare cases, cohesion in the TTs is much more than that of the ST. In
the case of substitution, both translators have applied the same pattern but used fewer substitutions in comparison with
the ST. In the case of ellipsis, Tahami has used more ellipsis than Mashayekhi and again both of them have used fewer
ellipsis than Wilde. The difference between the patterns of substitution and ellipsis in the ST and TTs which is due to the
addition of some extra information to the TT in order to convey the meaning, has not affected the transference of
meaning, but more attention to these devices, as it was obvious in Tahami 's translation, has led to a translation of higher
quality. In the case of conjunction, none of the translators have considered some of the conjunctive elements, and in
some cases, they have changed the conjunctions of the ST. Tahami has used more conjunctions, i.e. in comparison with
Mashayekhi. Again, this has not hampered the transference of meaning by the translators. Finally, the number of lexical
cohesions applied in the TTs, were less than the ST and Tahami has provided more lexical cohesions in comparison with
Mashayekhi in his translation. Actually, both translators, in this case, have successfully transferred the meaning of the
ST, though they have not followed the same pattern as in the ST. It can be noted that more attention to collocation and
reiteration patterns of the ST has led to more fluent and higher quality translation by Tahami.
References
Baker, M. (1993). Corpus linguistics and Translation Studies: Implications and Applications. In Baker, M. et al. (Ed). Text and
Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair. Amesterdam: John Benjamin.
Bell, R. T. (1993). Translation and Translating. London & New York: Longman.
Beaugrande, R. & Dressler, W. (1981). Introduction to Text Linguistics. London: Longman.
Brown, G. & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, G. & Yule, G. (1989). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Cook, G. (1989). Discourse. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Fowler, R. (1991). Language in the News: Discourse and Idiology in the Press. London & New York: Ruotledge.
Gutwinski, W. (1976). Cohesion in Literary Texts. The Hague: Mouton.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1987). On the Notion of a Text. Humburg: H. Buske.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. & Hassan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London & England: Longman.
Hatim, B. & Mason, I. (1990). Discourse and the Translator. London: Longman.
Khanzad, O. (2007). A Comparative Study of Cohesion in Translation from Persian into English: A Case Study of Sadi 's Gulistan.
(Master 's Thesis). Retrieved from Dissertationtopic.net. Doc H 315.
2379
ISSN 2039-2117 (online)
ISSN 2039-9340 (print)
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences
MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy
Vol 5 No 20
September 2014
Larson, M. (1984). Meaning- Based Translation: A Guide to Cross- Language Equivalence.
Lenham, New York & London: University Press of American
Lotfipur Saedi, K. (1992). An Introduction to Principles of Translation. Tehran: Markaze nashre Daneshgah.
Mashayekhi. R. (2008). The Picture of Dorian Gray. Tehran: Jami. (Original work published 1982)
McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Osisanwo, W. (2005). Introdution to Discourse Analysis and Pragmatics. Lagos: Femulus Fetop Publisher.
Renkema, J. (1993). Discourse Studies. Amesterdam & Netherland: John Benjamin.
Tahami, A. (2013). The Picture of Dorian. Tehran: Negah. (Original work published 1982)
Vahid Dastjerdi, H. & Taghizadeh, S. (2006). Application of Cohesive Devices in Translation: Persian and their English Translations in
Contrast. Iranian Journal of Translation Studies, 3, 57- 68.
Vandijk, A. T. (1972). Text and Context Explorations in the Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse. London: Longman.
Venuti, L. (2004) (ed.). Translation Studies Reader, 2nd ed. New York & London: Routledge.
Wilde, O. (1982). The Picture of Dorian Gray. New York: Random House.
2380